Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.

 Prev 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next

## TwoSeven

1312 posts

Uber Geek

Dreal:

I'm confused by this. If time-space is the medium via which all things occur - what is the 'control' in an experiment that would allow us to perceive it, and measure things like waves?

What is 'time-space' being compared to, in order to make the conclusion that it has 'waves'?

Could anyone point me to the actual research paper, or similar? I just would like to figure out if this makes sense.

If these are merely fluctuations in gravity, then it's assumption that it has any connection to time space at all. Not a proven thing, but rather mere data that could be explained in many ways (especially given gravity is still a mystery).

A lot of people, especially fans of relativity confuse math with model.

You could equally say that gravity is fluctuating because these events cause a breakdown in the CPU capacity of the virtual reality we all exist in, that it is some form of quantization, if this is the case. Or something like that. Not that I am claiming that.

You can think of space time as being the liquid in a swimming pool and us being an object in the centre of that pool  - the wobble is created when someone dives in to the water at the side of the pool creating a compression wave.  The compression of the water generates a [pressure] wave which is picked up by the person in the centre of the pool as a slight wobble that pushes them back and forth.

I understand that since gravitational waves are supposed to travel at the speed of light, a wobble in the first detector should have been followed 10ms later by the same wobble in the second detector which I think is what happened.

As I understand things, no triangulation can be done, so there is no real idea of where the objects are that caused the wobble - only an idea. It could be anything, also why only a few wobbles and not a continuous series of them for a long period of time.  If the case is that they are only caused in certain conditions, then could this not be a different phenomena.

Software Engineer

## Batman

19617 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

TwoSeven:

Dreal:

I'm confused by this. If time-space is the medium via which all things occur - what is the 'control' in an experiment that would allow us to perceive it, and measure things like waves?

What is 'time-space' being compared to, in order to make the conclusion that it has 'waves'?

Could anyone point me to the actual research paper, or similar? I just would like to figure out if this makes sense.

If these are merely fluctuations in gravity, then it's assumption that it has any connection to time space at all. Not a proven thing, but rather mere data that could be explained in many ways (especially given gravity is still a mystery).

A lot of people, especially fans of relativity confuse math with model.

You could equally say that gravity is fluctuating because these events cause a breakdown in the CPU capacity of the virtual reality we all exist in, that it is some form of quantization, if this is the case. Or something like that. Not that I am claiming that.

You can think of space time as being the liquid in a swimming pool and us being an object in the centre of that pool  - the wobble is created when someone dives in to the water at the side of the pool creating a compression wave.  The compression of the water generates a [pressure] wave which is picked up by the person in the centre of the pool as a slight wobble that pushes them back and forth.

I understand that since gravitational waves are supposed to travel at the speed of light, a wobble in the first detector should have been followed 10ms later by the same wobble in the second detector which I think is what happened.

As I understand things, no triangulation can be done, so there is no real idea of where the objects are that caused the wobble - only an idea. It could be anything, also why only a few wobbles and not a continuous series of them for a long period of time.  If the case is that they are only caused in certain conditions, then could this not be a different phenomena.

1. a clip from 3

2. a gravitational waves forum

3. another gravitational waves forum

Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.

## Batman

19617 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Dreal:

I'm confused by this. If time-space is the medium via which all things occur - what is the 'control' in an experiment that would allow us to perceive it, and measure things like waves?

What is 'time-space' being compared to, in order to make the conclusion that it has 'waves'?

Could anyone point me to the actual research paper, or similar? I just would like to figure out if this makes sense.

If these are merely fluctuations in gravity, then it's assumption that it has any connection to time space at all. Not a proven thing, but rather mere data that could be explained in many ways (especially given gravity is still a mystery).

A lot of people, especially fans of relativity confuse math with model.

You could equally say that gravity is fluctuating because these events cause a breakdown in the CPU capacity of the virtual reality we all exist in, that it is some form of quantization, if this is the case. Or something like that. Not that I am claiming that.

My understanding is this: General and Special Relativity breaks down when the smart guys analyse very small things like what makes an atom, what makes light (electromagnetic waves). They found that the things that make an atom/EMW are neither particle nor wave but both and actually actually actually, they don't know because they can't see the darn things.

However From these they don't knows they can both calculate (theory) and measure (observation) things that are supposed to be there if those things exist. Eg, the Higgs Boson confirms the Higgs Field. Apparently, mathematically things (read: atoms) cannot have mass without the Higgs field. Tick.

Same with gravitational field aka space-time, one of the four "fundamental forces". If you use quantum mechanics to explain this, then the postulate is that there is a field, and there is a particle associated. Also Apparently space cannot have nothing in it. Because the maths say so. So they call it all sorts of things, dark matter, dark energy, etc. google "dark matter gravitational waves"

Finally, there is another way to explain all this and you are right. The hypothesis is that, some aliens[thing] created something very close to "The Matrix" and what we all see, are in, is just "The Matrix", a virtual world that isn't real. Go figure that one out :)

Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.

## Dreal

418 posts

Ultimate Geek

Thanks I'll check those some of those videos out.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

## Dreal

418 posts

Ultimate Geek

You can think of space time as being the liquid in a swimming pool and us being an object in the centre of that pool  - the wobble is created when someone dives in to the water at the side of the pool creating a compression wave.  The compression of the water generates a [pressure] wave which is picked up by the person in the centre of the pool as a slight wobble that pushes them back and forth.

I understand that since gravitational waves are supposed to travel at the speed of light, a wobble in the first detector should have been followed 10ms later by the same wobble in the second detector which I think is what happened.

As I understand things, no triangulation can be done, so there is no real idea of where the objects are that caused the wobble - only an idea. It could be anything, also why only a few wobbles and not a continuous series of them for a long period of time.  If the case is that they are only caused in certain conditions, then could this not be a different phenomena.

No see then space-time is a particle (water), and it can be further or closer to each other, and actually have waves of compression, in the traditional sense. And it's also visible because we have not just water, but air, etc.

In space-time, space-time is fundamental.. Everything exists within it. It contains no particles to compress, or measure. No one can directly measure "space time" to my awareness - in fact, it seems by its very nature, logically impossible. Because of this "space time" may be an entirely theoretical construct with no basis.

So, to my awareness, people are measuring gravity, and CALLING IT, space time, with no evidence for the leap, based on relativity. They have been doing this for quite a while.

Sadly, you can't actually make scientific claims using weak evidence, like completely indirect measurement. Otherwise you could claim anything based on an unrelated datapoint. Correlation does not equal causation and all that.

And you can't call the 'math' proof either for 'space time'. Models have other models with equivilant math. Relativity itself is based on another very different model with equivilant math - if the math being right were proof (and we know the math fails with nano scales anyway), then Aether would be proven.  There will be possible dozens of math equivilant equations all representing different models - and some of them may actually be correct, unlike relativity (which like the standard model is incomplete).

Hence 'don't confuse model for math'. Which relativity fans, and astrophysicists are really fond of doing. They love just assuming that relativity is right on every assumption.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

## Dreal

418 posts

Ultimate Geek

Those videos and information were helpful. It is indeed gravity that is being detected, as is logical, not space-time.

They are using lazers to detect waves within gravity. They are small effects, and of course we'd expect gravity to effect light, because light has a tiny mass.

This really doesn't mean there is a 'space-time' or that einstien was right. What it says is, the math, not the model, is right (on the macro scale). keeping mind, einstien ripped a good portion of relativity from aether theory, and no one is saying aether has been proven :P

So gravity does have waves, which matches the math of relativity.

It does interest me, that having no direct measurement of 'space time', that a theory modelled on the immeasurable, is considered valid science. It really shouldn't be, if it can't be directly measured, it can't be falsified. The unfalsifiable isn't science.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

## Batman

19617 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

General relativity has been proven beyond doubt due to the observed apparent bending of light when it passes by objects with great mass. The medium in which light (, photons) travel is gravitational field. Further insight however is only possible with the discovery of the graviton.

Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.

## Ouranos

118 posts

Master Geek

Dreal:

It is indeed gravity that is being detected, as is logical, not space-time.

Not really. In General Relativity, gravity is just an emergent property of space-time being warped by mass. Gravity is not actually a thing at all. On the other hand, Quantum Theory says that gravity is the result of a hypothetical elementary particle, the Graviton (which has never been observed). The different perspectives of General Relativity and Quantum Theory are currently irreconcilable, which tells us that there is yet more to understand.

Dreal:

It does interest me, that having no direct measurement of 'space time', that a theory modelled on the immeasurable, is considered valid science. It really shouldn't be, if it can't be directly measured, it can't be falsified. The unfalsifiable isn't science.

What they've measured is the compression of space-time by the interaction of very large masses (in this case, two black holes orbiting each other and then merging). This is very much a direct measurement of space-time. In addition, this effect was predicted by the theory of General Relativity, and now observed in the real world by experiment. The researchers are able to say that the observations were caused by two orbiting/merging black holes because the data matches what the theory predicts would happen in such an event. That is definitely science.

## Dreal

418 posts

Ultimate Geek

joker97: General relativity has been proven beyond doubt due to the observed apparent bending of light when it passes by objects with great mass. The medium in which light (, photons) travel is gravitational field. Further insight however is only possible with the discovery of the graviton.

Well photons have mass, so we'd expect them to be effected by gravity. That doesn't prove time-space is curved, does it?

I mean that might have been taken as such when we didn't know for sure that light has mass (even though we have had light windmills for ages!). But given it has mass, surely we'd expect it's path to curve anyway even if relativity was wrong?

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

## Dreal

418 posts

Ultimate Geek

What they've measured is the compression of space-time by the interaction of very large masses (in this case, two black holes orbiting each other and then merging). This is very much a direct measurement of space-time. In addition, this effect was predicted by the theory of General Relativity, and now observed in the real world by experiment. The researchers are able to say that the observations were caused by two orbiting/merging black holes because the data matches what the theory predicts would happen in such an event. That is definitely science.

No, the lasers measure fluctuations in gravity that effect the small mass of the photon. Not time space. What this proves is that the math of the model has merit - in predicting gravitational waves from certain events. Recalling, that the math actually comes from an math-equivilant model with a completely different outlook (Aether theory). To say that what the math predicts proves relativity, is similar to saying that it proves Lorentz's Aether theory from which relativity is derived and equivilant to.

Then again we've known the equations have some merit for a long time, hence why it's all astrophysicists use, even if it's also wrong and breaks down on the quantum scale.

Core scientific theory is pretty useful here. It tells us that something needs direct measurement, in order to be firmly falsifiable. If you are indirectly measuring something, and it can't be directly measured, it isn't firmly falsifiable - which threatens to make an idea psuedoscience, or at least soft science. Being firmly falsifiable is a criteria for science.

And here we are measuring the influence of gravity directly. Not time-space directly (which may be impossible)

It's a threat to string theory, to conciousness emergence in the many brain theories, and from my reading of relativity, also the supposed curvature of time space. Certainly it sounds neat and cool, and a lot of people believe in it. It might even be right, but I wonder if it is actually valid science to claim time space is curved? (not according to popular opinion, but the foundational ideas of scientific theory)

Indeed, if relativity is also wrong, as is the standard model, you have to wonder about the wisdom of blindly adhering to all of their concepts and postulates. Because whatever will take both their places, will no doubt have in some areas, significantly differing concepts and postulations.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

## TwoSeven

1312 posts

Uber Geek

Dreal:

You can think of space time as being the liquid in a swimming pool and us being an object in the centre of that pool  - the wobble is created when someone dives in to the water at the side of the pool creating a compression wave.  The compression of the water generates a [pressure] wave which is picked up by the person in the centre of the pool as a slight wobble that pushes them back and forth.

I understand that since gravitational waves are supposed to travel at the speed of light, a wobble in the first detector should have been followed 10ms later by the same wobble in the second detector which I think is what happened.

As I understand things, no triangulation can be done, so there is no real idea of where the objects are that caused the wobble - only an idea. It could be anything, also why only a few wobbles and not a continuous series of them for a long period of time.  If the case is that they are only caused in certain conditions, then could this not be a different phenomena.

No see then space-time is a particle (water), and it can be further or closer to each other, and actually have waves of compression, in the traditional sense. And it's also visible because we have not just water, but air, etc.

This to me sounds like particle theory - surely a particle is just a dense part of a field - would not a field equate to a body of water in a metaphor and the particle to the individual within it?

Software Engineer

## Ouranos

118 posts

Master Geek

One person supports this post

Dreal:

No, the lasers measure fluctuations in gravity that effect the small mass of the photon. Not time space.

The experiment did not measure light (photons). It measured the length of two 4km long orthogonal structures (using synchronized lasers, which use light, but that is beside the point). The photons of the lasers were not bent by the gravity waves; instead, the length of the structures varied as they were compressed/stretched by the gravity waves.

There's a good explanation at: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160211-gravitational-waves-discovered-at-long-last/

That source says "Einstein flip-flopped, confused as to what his equations implied. But even steadfast believers assumed that, in any case, gravitational waves would be too weak to observe. They cascade outward from certain cataclysmic events, alternately stretching and squeezing space-time as they go. But by the time the waves reach Earth from these remote sources, they typically stretch and squeeze each mile of space by a minuscule fraction of the width of an atomic nucleus."

That minuscule stretching and squeezing of space-time is what the experiment measured.

## Dreal

418 posts

Ultimate Geek

TwoSeven:

This to me sounds like particle theory - surely a particle is just a dense part of a field - would not a field equate to a body of water in a metaphor and the particle to the individual within it?

True, a particle is a field until it collapses. But time space is not supposed to be a field, it's supposed to be a medium, like vacuum.

In relativity, that medium has no waves, fields, particles, it is merely its geometric nature that is supposed to impart gravity. In relativity, there is no particle wave duality at all.

In quantum mechanics, a vacuum is a soup of transient virtual particles by contrast, without geometry (in the standard model). So these are not actually compatible theories to mix.

Just comparing those two shows how little we understand 'space time'.  Honestly when I look at things like the higgs, and virtual particles which appear and disappear out of nowhere, but somehow retain information (like path), somehow like the picture on a TV, with no apparent source of broadcast or conveyance - I am pretty dumbfounded when it comes to the nature of 'space'.

Hell, time is even more confusing. Is it linear? Is it a dimension like space? Is it always forward facing? Is it merely entropy? Is it simultaneous? Is it a product of conciousness?

Time continues to heavily confound science, and is a source of great debate.

So, "time-space", to me, as a word, almost sounds like one of those bad words they make up on doctor who or star trek like 'reverse the polarity of the neutron flow', considering how little we know about either space, or time.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

## Dreal

418 posts

Ultimate Geek

Ouranos:

The experiment did not measure light (photons). It measured the length of two 4km long orthogonal structures (using synchronized lasers, which use light, but that is beside the point). The photons of the lasers were not bent by the gravity waves; instead, the length of the structures varied as they were compressed/stretched by the gravity waves.

There's a good explanation at: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160211-gravitational-waves-discovered-at-long-last/

That source says "Einstein flip-flopped, confused as to what his equations implied. But even steadfast believers assumed that, in any case, gravitational waves would be too weak to observe. They cascade outward from certain cataclysmic events, alternately stretching and squeezing space-time as they go. But by the time the waves reach Earth from these remote sources, they typically stretch and squeeze each mile of space by a minuscule fraction of the width of an atomic nucleus."

That minuscule stretching and squeezing of space-time is what the experiment measured.

Actually the expanding and contracting of length was what they measured.

"Using state-of-the-art stabilizers, vacuums and thousands of sensors, the scientists measured changes in the arms’ lengths as tiny as one thousandth the width of a proton."

"An active feedback system for canceling out extraneous vibrations in real time"

That sounds very prone to error. The fact that there is some form of software noise reduction system, means the result is entirely dependant on that being accurate - we await replication and some serious peer review.

Also there are loads of theories that could result in variations in the length of things other than Einstiens curved timespace (Lorentz's Aether, VR, Bohms folding space in his hidden variable model and doubtless much more I can't immediately think of). So back to that whole direct, indirect thing, and don't confuse the math with the model.

Very fun if its true, but any mathematically close to equivilant model should produce the same prediction. Indeed, could be a phenomena that has nothing to do with blackholes etc, making it proof that relativity is wrong, or support for some other theory.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

## Dreal

418 posts

Ultimate Geek

Actually I'd have found this way more interesting if any of the articles had started by explaining it was fluctuations in length (like, in general length changing). Relativity aside, that's kinda cool.

Tap That - Great cheap tablets and tablet accessories. Windows and Android, NZ based

 Prev 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next

Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.

Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.